Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2016
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:59:54PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Yes, given that we already have different meanings for interior sequences of
> multiple pairs of colons within the bareword between modules and packages,
> I'm comfortable that it is consistent to make require with any number of
> paired leading colons an error.
>
> (I believe that odd numbers of colons are already an error. Hence my phrasing)
I'm just reviving this 4-year old thread concerning what to do about
'require ::Foo::Bar'.
I could have sworn we had already fixed this, but it turns out not.
I think a consensus had been reached in this thread that a bareword
require with any combination of at least 2 leading colons should just die.
In the branch smoke-me/davem/require that I've just pushed, I've
rebased and tweaked Nicholas's original branch, and added an extra commit
that converts anything starting with 2 colons into an error:
$ perl -e'require ::Foo::Bar'
Bareword in require must not start with a double-colon: "::Foo::Bar"
$
(Unlike the similar work in cperl, I've added a specific new error
message, and made the offending module name be displayed pre-conversion to
a pathname.)
If this is ok, should it go in before 5.24?
--
It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it
happens.
-- Woody Allen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next